On 2013-11-19 17:16:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:39:19PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-11-19 16:37:32 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2013-11-19 10:30:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > > > I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support
> > > > > > (although it would surely be nice).
> > > > >
> > > > > inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features.
> > > > > Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not.
> > > >
> > > > But it's a part of C99 that was very widely implemented before, so even
> > > > if we don't want to rely on C99 in its entirety, relying on inline
> > > > support is realistic.
> > > >
> > > > I think, independent from atomics, the readability & maintainability win
> > > > by relying on inline functions instead of long macros, potentially with
> > > > multiple eval hazards, or contortions like ILIST_INCLUDE_DEFINITIONS is
> > > > significant.
> > >
> > > Oh, man, my fastgetattr() macro is going to be simplified. All my good
> > > work gets rewritten. ;-)
> >
> > That and HeapKeyTest() alone are sufficient reason for this ;)
>
> Has there been any performance testing on this rewrite to use atomics?
> If so, can I missed it.
Do you mean inline? Or atomics? If the former no, if the latter
yes. I've started on it because of
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20130926225545.GB26663%40awork2.anarazel.de
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
